• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

Mithros said:
It's simple, productivity has greatly outpaced wages. Things are made so that they can be sold. The only people who can buy things are people who make money. Employment drops when productivity outpaces wages.

Wages - savings + borrowing = consumption
Consumption / productivity = # of jobs.
Click to expand...

So to improve employment, the country needs to become less productive?
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Oh you mean the thirty three or so bills repealing the affordable care act, the bills that are banning abortion, letting unemployment benefits expire, and bills cutting food stamps.

How do any of those create jobs?
Click to expand...

No, sorry, I posted the link to those bills in a previous post to Donc in this thread. I suggest you do some research.

Just as I thought, though, you are nothing more than a big govt. liberal who has no concept as to who pays the bills for all those liberal programs. Creating jobs isn't something a liberal really cares about except to create jobs of dependence and civil service.

I assure you that one of these days you will indeed mature and realize what a fool liberalism made out of you. I know because I did grow up as well.
 
Boo Radley said:
I didn't say no attention, but they won't throw away opportunity to make money because of them. They will adjust. They always have. You guys tend to use what was happening before reform as being his fault. That's often just silly.
Click to expand...

Yes, because business has to adjust they do, and that adjustment means fewer employees and no growth. Congratulations on exceptional Obama leadership for generating that kind of climate. Anyone that thinks the Presidential leadership doesn't impact the economy and human behavior is truly naïve.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
You continue to avoid the point, you would not be hired by him, you could not therefore claim from a personal viewpoint that he is a good employer, only those who work for him can make that personal judgement.
Click to expand...

I love how you totally ignore anything that flies in the face of your personal distorted opinion. You really need to seek some help especially with reading comprehension and to cure your ignorance of reality.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I did not make such a judgement, I said anyone who whines about the long term unemployed, constantly using them as a club in their arguments....when they previous and continuously repeat they would not hire the long term unemployed.......are making hypocritical statements.

It is remarkable that you have yet to comprehend that.
Click to expand...

Hmmm.

I'm thinking you have a difficult time comprehending what you write.
 
Mithros said:
It's simple, productivity has greatly outpaced wages. Things are made so that they can be sold. The only people who can buy things are people who make money. Employment drops when productivity outpaces wages.

Wages - savings + borrowing = consumption
Consumption / productivity = # of jobs.
Click to expand...

Yet that ignores the growth in new industries and expansion of technology. How many billionaires were created by Facebook, Microsoft, Apple? New businesses crop up as new technology becomes available. The key for people is to keep up with changes in the economy and not rely on the Federal Govt. to provide for their living expenses.
 
Conservative said:
I love how you totally ignore anything that flies in the face of your personal distorted opinion. You really need to seek some help especially with reading comprehension and to cure your ignorance of reality.
Click to expand...
You need to knock off the personal attacks before you get reported.

If you can't deal with the argument in other than personal attacks, find some other pastime.
 
Conservative said:
Yet that ignores the growth in new industries and expansion of technology. How many billionaires were created by Facebook, Microsoft, Apple? New businesses crop up as new technology becomes available. The key for people is to keep up with changes in the economy and not rely on the Federal Govt. to provide for their living expenses.
Click to expand...
Priceless, you don't argue for training for those new technologies, you argue for more billionaires.

Ayn Rand strikes again.

 
ocean515 said:
So to improve employment, the country needs to become less productive?
Click to expand...

That's one way, a better way is to pay people more, cease the preferential treatment of capital income (especially non-realized), and promote education.

Think about the transition from handmade to assembly line goods. It's hard to argue that the transition has not been a good thing. However, it caused problems until the workers formed unions and earned a reasonable wage.
 
Conservative said:
Yet that ignores the growth in new industries and expansion of technology. How many billionaires were created by Facebook, Microsoft, Apple? New businesses crop up as new technology becomes available. The key for people is to keep up with changes in the economy and not rely on the Federal Govt. to provide for their living expenses.
Click to expand...

It doesn't ignore it, it's just not part of the macroscopic equation.

Productivity is a measure of how much stuff a worker makes. That stuff can be a good, a service or IP.
Wages are related to how much that worker can consume.

If average productivity outpaces wages, then average consumption won't be able to keep pace with productivity. And if consumption doesn't keep pace with productivity then businesses can keep pace with consumption with fewer workers. There's really no way around it.
 
Conservative said:
Yes, because business has to adjust they do, and that adjustment means fewer employees and no growth. Congratulations on exceptional Obama leadership for generating that kind of climate. Anyone that thinks the Presidential leadership doesn't impact the economy and human behavior is truly naïve.
Click to expand...


Not necessarily. Here it means fewer part time and more full time. If there is business, they will hire and grow. It is that simple.
 
Boo Radley said:
Not necessarily. Here it means fewer part time and more full time. If there is business, they will hire and grow. It is that simple.
Click to expand...

And soon, they'll be hiring as many 29-hour-per-week employees as necessary. The unemployment rate will go down further, much to Obama's liking, just not with full-time folks.
 
Erod said:
And soon, they'll be hiring as many 29-hour-per-week employees as necessary. The unemployment rate will go down further, much to Obama's liking, just not with full-time folks.
Click to expand...

They've been doing that for a long time now. Nothing new in that. I don't think we can blame Obama for something that started decades ago. Even now, it's more an excuse than a reason. But it underscores the reason to remove healthcare from employment, giving them one less thing to blame.
 
ocean515 said:
So to improve employment, the country needs to become less productive?
Click to expand...

Good afternoon, ocean515. :2wave:

Why yes, ocean! It's the only logical conclusion that one could draw! To quote you,

:shock:

:lamo:
 
Gimmesometruth said:
You have nothing, like con, so you resort to the purely personal.

Same warning.
Click to expand...

Gee whiz truth, you've done nothing by obfuscate and claim the other poster is a bad employer, and likes to use clubs on other people.

I've mearly tried to engage in some rational debate.

As usual, I see that is a great challenge with you.

Perhaps you could offer some ideas of your own, rather than personal attacks and judgements.

Just a thought.

By the way, do you have any thoughts about the amount of gross revenue the average business needs to generate to cover a $50k job w/benefits?

Really anxious to learn from your perspective.
 
Boo Radley said:
They've been doing that for a long time now. Nothing new in that. I don't think we can blame Obama for something that started decades ago. Even now, it's more an excuse than a reason. But it underscores the reason to remove healthcare from employment, giving them one less thing to blame.
Click to expand...

When you remove health care (insurance) from employment, what do you expect the taxes might be on each employer/individual to cover the costs?
 
AlabamaPaul said:
When you remove health care (insurance) from employment, what do you expect the taxes might be on each employer/individual to cover the costs?
Click to expand...

Shouldn't be anymore than we pay now. We pay premiums, as does the employer. That money is spent now, so spending it another way doesn't make it more nor less (though less administrative costs should lessen it some). But, business can't use it as an excuse.
 
Mithros said:
That's one way, a better way is to pay people more, cease the preferential treatment of capital income (especially non-realized), and promote education.

Think about the transition from handmade to assembly line goods. It's hard to argue that the transition has not been a good thing. However, it caused problems until the workers formed unions and earned a reasonable wage.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but from the examples I've seen, your remedy has not born the fruit the theory promised.

Spending on education is substantial, and the manufacturing sector has certainly taken a beating as a result of union actions.

I think the gulf between our two opinions is rather vast.
 
Boo Radley said:
Shouldn't be anymore than we pay now. We pay premiums, as does the employer. That money is spent now, so spending it another way doesn't make it more nor less (though less administrative costs should lessen it some). But, business can't use it as an excuse.
Click to expand...

So, give us a number. How much should an employer be expected to pay for each employee and how much should each individual be expected to pay as a percentage of wages (FYI: Our employees currently pay nothing)...
 
Boo Radley said:
They've been doing that for a long time now. Nothing new in that. I don't think we can blame Obama for something that started decades ago. Even now, it's more an excuse than a reason. But it underscores the reason to remove healthcare from employment, giving them one less thing to blame.
Click to expand...

No, they haven't. Businesses are best built on full-time commitment, and always have been. The conversations being had in executive meetings are different than anything I've heard in the past 15 years, and my industry colleagues are saying the same. This is unchartered territory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom